Talk:Flag of Australia

Template:V0.5

Hoist vs Left

I'm new to Wikipedia, and this is one of the first articles I've ever edited so I realize that my revision might not stick (considering how high profile this page is), but I wanted to quickly explain my rationale anyways. In the first paragraph, I changed the word "hoist" to "left" since it seems pointless to explain a technical term with another technical term, especially considering that both meanings of the word are commonly used in reference to flags. I also included a link to the Glossary of vexillology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrThunderizer (talk • contribs) 07:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The "hoist" side is the half of the flag nearest the flagpole and is not always the left side. If you are looking at the back side of a flag, or at a flag that is hoisted with the flagpole to its right (the flag of Saudi Arabia for example), the hoist is at the right. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, I changed it back, but I left the link. MrThunderizer (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The 1927 mystery

Apparently the Australian Flag Society has discovered a blue looking flag in the official portrait of the opening of old parliament house. I would have thought they were a good enough source. I see they are mentioned in other articles. I've been following them in the media for the last 10 years.

Let's face it as to that blue flag in the official portrait. How could that remain a secret forever?

Jodyrootes (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with keeping secrets. As I've indicated in edit summaries and on your talk page, image galleries are discouraged and the edits that you have made are clearly the result of personal analysis by a Wikipedia editor, which is not permitted. Everything added to Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia editors do not fall into that category. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note I am not a member or anything. I just subscribe to their offerings and here is the latest for your information:

“The 1927 Mystery Unravels” (12 July 2014) 2(1) Flag Breaking News (ISSN 2203-2118)

The seemingly unresolvable controversy over the type of Australian flags used at the 1927 opening ceremony of the second provisional parliament house in Canberra is now one step closer to being solved. The latest research being carried out by the Australian Flag Society shows that, contrary to previous claims that only red ensigns are depicted in the official portrait, the field of the flag flying vertically in the second position in the order of precedence is predominantly blue, and may either be shown as a Union Jack or a blue ensign. One of the flags flying from the flag poles standing vertically in front of the building also has something of a blue streak. Both artists have made small errors in detail, as Power has positioned one of the westernmost horizontal facade poles as turned 90 degrees to the front and depicted facing the crowd instead. Other photographs taken that day also appear to show a large Union Jack flying horizontally from another, lower facade pole also at the western end. However neither of these two features are in evidence in the lithograph as one would expect from the north westerly perspective chosen by the unknown artist.

Upon microscopic examination, the only hard evidence in at least one of the photographs taken that day seems to show a blue ensign draped behind the Union Jack. John Christian Vaughan, vexillographer and former CEO of the Royal Australian Historical Society, has ventured to say: “The Cross of St George on the Union Jack is red and of darker shade that the blue of St Andrew's Cross. It is interesting to note that the blue on the Union Jack matches the shade of Australian flag which, to my eye means that the Australian flag has a blue field not red which would have matched the shade of the red St George's Cross.”

The 1927 mystery deepens according to other corroboration as to the presence of red ensigns, with a correspondent for The West Australian reporting that: "The sunlight streamed through the crimson of drooping flags”. When one binds all the available evidence together, this strongly suggests that both Australian flag variants were present on this occasion. However the choice would likely have been one Power - who left behind the words “It was decided .. flags in red” - would have made alone, and the fact that there was no comment when the official rendition was unveiled is also considered revealing.

Jodyrootes (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Alleged emails are not reliable sources and the speculative nature of what is in the above is unlikely to be regarded as a reliable source. Wikipedia:Fringe theories seems to apply here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be quite firm in your resolve to delay the inevitable. I personally can't see what the problem will be except that I know what a shock to the system it often is when previous understandings start to buckle and fall by the wayside. An eloquent man of letters and resources with his finger on the pulse. I'm just the contributor wikipedia is looking for.

Jodyrootes (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the content that you added doesn't consist of something supported by the mainstream, which is why it isn't given the weight you'd like it to be given. It needs to be covered by more reliable sources and you can't add your own analysis. You seem to be missing these points. If I was advertising for a contributor, I'd have to count this against you and move onto the next applicant, or re-advertise. You do get a few points for enthusiasm though. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Folks think cinderella wore glass slippers. The fact of the blue flag has been discovered now. I suppose we can wait until a newspaper picks it up. It wont get up and go anywhere in the meantime. But I mean how much stuff on wikipedia is backed up by a reference to the Ausflag website? Are their more lazy scholars around? Cant afford a five buck jewelers microscope off ebay?

Jodyrootes (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

And the other thing is, when it comes down to it, what makes Elizabeth Kwan's word any better than the flag society's? Especially as the latter are demonstrably correct? There could not actually be much mainstream interest in this one if nobody has ever noticed that solid blue flag in Septimus Powers portrait before. Once you mention it it doesnt even look red on the face of it.

Jodyrootes (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kwan's work is published on the Parliament of Australia website, so it has some credibility. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The most convincing thing about what the flag society are now saying is all that visual evidence that came with their latest bulletin and which you have removed from the article.

Jodyrootes (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The least convincing thing is that the Australian Flag Society would be the least independent and impartial body to have just happened on this alleged evidence that allegedly happens to support its somewhat absolute position. Summary: I really don't trust them. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And Elizabeth Kwan is neutral? I think you will find she mentioned the Australian Flag Society in her book. And I just re read it, she's not actually saying there were ONLY red ensigns. So we'll need a source for that.

Do one thing. Get an image of the portrait and blow it up and see for yourself. I think we'll put it back in won't we?

58.168.24.240 (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)